Lina Anani

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirming the dismissal of his refugee claim.

He argued the RAD erred in rejecting new evidence regarding affidavit requirements in Kenya, treating him unfairly regarding credibility concerns, and improperly weighing corroborating evidence of identity.

The Federal Court found no unreasonableness or unfairness in the RAD's decision and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the Refugee Protection Division (RPD)'s determination that he was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.

The RAD dismissed the appeal on the basis that the applicant failed to establish his personal and national identity.

The Federal Court found that the RAD breached the principles of natural justice by making new credibility findings regarding the applicant's uncle's affidavit without giving the applicant notice or an opportunity to respond.

The Court therefore allowed the application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD).

The first decision reopened an appeal initially granting him Convention refugee status due to the Minister's inability to submit evidence amid COVID-19 closures.

The Federal Court found this decision reasonable as it remedied a breach of natural justice.

The second decision dismissed the applicant's appeal, relying on a subjective appraisal of photographs to find the applicant's identity was not established.

The Court found this second decision unreasonable because the RAD failed to justify its conclusion that the photographs depicted the same person or explain why it disregarded conflicting evidence.

The application regarding the reopening was dismissed, while the application regarding the substantive decision was granted and the matter remitted for redetermination.

The applicant, a citizen of Afghanistan, sought judicial review of a decision refusing his application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The Court found that the officer unreasonably assessed the applicant's establishment in Canada by minimizing his work history, family relationships, and the length of his stay under a Temporary Stay of Removal.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted for redetermination.

The applicant, claiming to be a citizen of Somalia fleeing persecution from Al-Shabaab, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) denial of his refugee claim.

The RAD found the applicant failed to establish his identity with acceptable evidence and was not credible, as his Ugandan-issued Somali passport and national identity card did not comply with the processes outlined in the National Documentation Package for Somalia.

The Federal Court reviewed the RAD's decision on a reasonableness standard and found the RAD's assessment of the identity documents and credibility issues to be transparent, intelligible, and justified.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration applied for judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision granting refugee protection to the respondent, a citizen of Somalia.

The Minister challenged the RAD's findings regarding the reliability of the respondent's birth certificate and identity evidence, and alleged the RAD erred by failing to consider Article 1E.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the RAD's decision reasonable in its assessment of the documentary evidence and noting that Article 1E was not in issue before the Refugee Protection Division.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division that dismissed his appeal and upheld a finding by the Refugee Protection Division that he had not provided sufficient reliable evidence to establish his identity.

The Court found that the RAD reasonably determined that the evidence of the applicant's identity witnesses was unreliable, including one witness who incorrectly stated that deceased family members were alive and another whose employment history contradicted prior testimony.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants, a family of stateless Palestinians from Gaza, sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision denying their claims for refugee protection.

They argued a breach of procedural fairness occurred regarding interpretation services at the hearing, and that the RPD erred in applying gender guidelines and assessing their risks under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding no procedural unfairness as the applicants elected their languages and comprehended the process.

The Court also found the RPD's rejection of their claims, based on general adverse conditions rather than personalized risk or gender persecution, was reasonable and justified by the evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division rejecting his claim for refugee protection and finding it had no credible basis.

The applicant claimed he was targeted by al-Shabaab in Somalia.

The RPD found the applicant lacked credibility due to prior misrepresentations in European asylum claims and rejected his identity documents and witness testimony.

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding the RPD's credibility analysis and its conclusion that the claim had no credible basis were unreasonable.

The Court noted the RPD failed to properly assess independent documentary evidence capable of supporting the claim before making the "no credible basis" finding.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) denying his appeal of the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) rejection of his refugee claim.

The claim was based on fear of persecution in Somalia by Al-Shabaab.

The RPD and RAD found that the applicant had not credibly established his identity as a Somali national, noting inconsistencies in his evidence, including a prior asylum claim in the US and discrepancies regarding his residence in Somalia.

The RAD refused to convene an oral hearing for new evidence.

On judicial review, the Federal Court applied the Vavilov standard of review, concluding that the RAD's failure to convoke an oral hearing was reasonable, there was no breach of procedural fairness, and the credibility and identity findings were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Refugee Appeal Division's (RAD) decision dismissing his application to re-open his appeal, which had previously been dismissed for lack of perfection.

The applicant argued the dismissal breached natural justice because his former counsel failed to perfect the record.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly consider the evidence regarding the justification for the delay in bringing the application to re-open, as required by Rule 49(7) of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted for redetermination.

The appellant appealed his sexual assault conviction, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel and a breach of his section 14 Charter right to an interpreter.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence regarding the ineffective assistance claim but found no miscarriage of justice, noting trial counsel's strategic decisions were reasonable.

The Court rejected the section 14 claim, finding the appellant understood the proceedings and did not require an interpreter.

The appeal was dismissed.